http://ricksfreeautorepairadvice.com/col...
They don't: the makers' engineers have calculated the air needs of the engine with a wide margin of error for people who don't change their filters often enough . . . . they place the air intake in a place to stay dry, where ambient air will be the best temp and not in a vacuum/void. You could build an intake with an intercooler, water or vapor injector, "ram air" etc, but the super-dooper air intake systems are of little or no value.
If you just have to spend some money, consider a free-flow exhaust . . . but with car converters, I don't know if they help either.
Sorry "rick": whether injected or carbureted, a normally-aspirated engine still has to suck the air/fuel mixture in.......only ones that don't are pressurized induction (super or turbo-charged).
The manufactures have done a fairly decent job or opening-up the air flow, so I doubt you'll see or feel any difference. In the bad old days of carburetors, the air flow could be restrictive enough that the engine would have to suck in the air, which hampered power & efficiency.
It doesnt!!!!!!!! ITs that little fine wording they put on the package that makes you think your getting improved MPG. Trust me, with all the hype of increasing MPG on vehicles, if those actually worked. Every auto maker on this planet would have already jumped on that idea & it would come from the plant like that. But they havent because they do absolutely nothing for HP or MPG increase
it don,t
So I know that a more free-flowing air intake is supposed to increase power. But this is because of more air = more fuel = more power, right? So if this is correct, how does it actually decrease fuel consumption? I don't get it.
